803-805. Mr. Wakefield proposes to change ons into αποσίς. Our protest has already been offered against this imaginary word, in the remarks on V. 285. There is no such compound. Mr. W. assigns as a reason for the necessity of this alteration, si clausulas sententia singillatim intuearis, liquebit aliter non inveniri quod respondeat voci tugawos: erat enim Hecuba quondam regina, quum fuerat uxor regis.' Diatr. p. 29.-In this verse,

Τύραννος ἦν ποῖ, ἀλλὰ νῦν δούλη σέθεν.

the opposition, surely, is strong enough between Túpavos, a queen, and douan, a slave: so that, even if there existed such a word as amoris, its insertion in this passage would be not merely unnecessary, but even improper.

806. Οι μοι τάλαινα, πᾶι μὲ ὑπεξάγεις πόδας

G. W. Mutatâ saltem literula, lectio suboritur, qua fortassis omne punctum doctorum feret :- ποι μὲ ὑπεξάγεις ΠΟΔΙ ;

The Dative To would rather refer to the person who stands as the Nominative of the Verb inyes, than to the Pronoun s.ca is the Accusative of the Instrument or Member by which the motion is effected. Mr. Porson's note on Orest.` 1427. has been cited on V. 53.

831. Καὶ χερσὶ, καὶ κόμαισι, καὶ ποδῶν βάσει.

R. P. Pro vous primo xópzies, deinde vos conjicit Musgravius. Sed cum omnes MSS. et edd. tum Etym. M. p. 26. 54. vulgatam lectionem confirmant.'

G. W. In Ver. 831. nibil in hac arte certius emendatione Musgra vii: και χερσι, και ΚΟΡΑΙΣ pro vulgata scriptione κομαισι.”

The authors of the Bibliotheca Critica also think that Musgrave's correction is right. We are decidedly hostile to all emendations which are not absolutely demanded, in order to remove some blunder in the sentiment, the construction, or the metre of any passage. As the word as is not destitute of sense, the caution of the Editor in not altering the text of his author, without an urgent necessity, merits our commendation. It must be added, also, that Valckenaer quotes this passage in order to compare it with Phan. 318. and does not dispute the old reading. He likewise mentions the citation of the Etym. Magnum.-This verse, with the preceding and following lines, is introduced likewise by Joannes Tzetzes into his Chiliad, I. 19. whom the Editors of Euripides have not mentioned. He preserves the lection of our copies, xóμason. We readily grant, however, that xipair is an ingenious correction; though it is not defended by any authority.

In this note, Mr. W. proposes an emendation on the Ajax of Sophocles, 1209. where he reads κείμαι δρόσοις τεγδόμενος ΚΟ

ΡΑΣ

ΡΑΣ λύδρας, μ. τ. κόμας, λυγρᾶς μνήματα Τροίας. This innovation would destroy the whole beauty of the passage. How will ΚΟΡΑΣ δρόσοις τεγόμενος, even if δρόσοις signifies tears, suit

, and the preceding part of the Chorus? It seems to degrade the firm character of Ajax's Salaminian Warriors. How will these verses of Sophocles, thus altered, correspond with the account given by the Herald, in the Agamemnon of Eschylus, after his return from the siege of Troy: 560. Ειναι γὰρ ἦσαν δηΐων πρὸς τείχεσιν· Ἐξ ουρανοῦ γὰρ κἀπὸ γῆς λειμωνίαι Δρόσοι καλεψέκαζον ἔμπεδον σίνος Ἐσθηματων, τιθέντες ἔνθηρον τρίχα.

An observation might be made on λειμωνία: and τιθέντες : but we are in expectation of Mr. Porson's notes.

905. καλὰ δ' αιθάλου.

Κηλίδα δικθροβάτα κέχρωσαι.

R. P. 4 αιθάλῳ al. αιθαλον καπνόν Ald. et multi A1SS. καπνοῦ omittit K.'

906. R. P. Sic Ald. et MSS. Quidam óxpoláτav.”

This text exactly gives the reading of Aldus, except the omission of xavou after abou, and it appears sufficiently perspicuous. Mr. W. is of a different opinion. He first is surprised that Mr. P.'s superbissimum judicium should assent to the elision of the final vowel in and, and next he wishes thus to reform the passage:

καλα δ' αιθαλή,

ΚΗΛΙΔ' ΟΙΚΤΡΟΤΑΤΑΝ, κεχρώσαι

These alterations are gathered, as Mr. W. confesses, from the various lections*. We again repeat that, according to our judgment, the passage, as Mr. Porson gives it from Aldus, requires not alteration.

It may be inquired, however, why the Editor should have been offended with an elision of the final I in a dative singular?-To this question we are unable to give a satisfactory answer.Has any metrical law been promulgated, by which such an elision is forbidden? Has any critic attempted to establish such a metrical law?-If he has even wished it, let him consult the books, the genuine Attic code; and his opinion will be altered. Ως μὲν τοίνυν ουχὶ καλῶς ου]ὸς ἔχει, καὶ δικαίως, ο νόμος, ουλ' ἐρειν ειμαι αυτόν, οὔτ ̓, ἐὰν λέγη, δείξαι δυνήσεσθαι.

*abaw is from Beckius's Cod. D. which belongs to Matthæus, and from King's Edit.-lolala is proposed by Heath, is published by Musgrave and Brunck, and appears in Musgrave's MS. A. and Lib.

P.

In the Appendix to Toup, Vol. IV. p. 450. Mr. Porson promulgates this Canon: "Nunquam elidi vocalem in dativo plurali." This rule the reader will find defended and illustrated in the account of the learned Mr. Glasse's Samson Agonistes, Monthly Review, September, 1789, p. 244, in which are examined most of the passages in Euripides that seemed to oppose it.

This Attic law has not been ratified by the decisions of Mr. Wakefield. Does he wish to transfer it to the singular number?-We find in his Sil. Crit. IV. p. 231. the following line given in his corrected copy of the Iambics by Aristo, preserved by Theophilus, ad Autolyc. IV.

Εστι δε και τοις ζωσ' όσιως προεδρία,

in which a Trochæus occupies the first place, and a Pyrrhic the fifth, in a trimeter Iambic. Why not read:

Εστιν δὲ καὶ τοῖς ζῶσιν ὁσίως προεδρία.

The Εψιλον in προεδρία, according to Dawes's Canon, Mifc. Crit. p. 197. cannot possibly be long in Comedy. Hence Aristophanes, in his Equites :

575. Νῦν δ' ἐὰν μὴ προεδρίαν φέρωσι καὶ τὰ σιλία.
702. ̓Απολῶ σε, νὴ τὴν προεδρίαν τὴν εκ Πύλου,
703. Ἰδοὺ προεδρίαν· ὅιον ὀψομαί σ' ἐγώ.

704. Εκ τῆς προεδρίας ἔσχατον θεώμενον,

and so in his Acharn. 42. and in his Thesmoph. 834.; and so Aristo himself, if the passage be genuine, in the third line of this very fragment. In Tragedy, the quantity of this syllable may vary; as is the case in Orestes, 298. Edit. Personi, with προσεδρία.

Ει γαρ προλέιψεις μ', ή προσεδρία νόσου

Zwow, moreover, is the lection of the Edit. Princeps. Ti gur. 1546. of Wolfius's Hamb. 1724. and of the Hage Comit. 1742. Wolfius proposes "Edly, and Grotius Excerpt,

P. 1005. reads ̓Αλλ' ἔστι καὶ τοῖς ζῶσιν..

At the end of this note is a correction of Hesychius: Aαλώδης, καπνώδης, σποδώδης, instead of σκότωδης; which merits at tention, and is defended by proper authorities.

921. ἐπιδέμνιος ὡς πέσοιμ' ἐς ἐυναν.

R. P. is silent. G. W. censures feda hujusce orationis tau tologa scabitudo, and is 'TIINON. This emendation may class with some which have been already noted. Whether is av or is invoy be the lection, the sense will scarcely be varied. In Herc. F. 1050. we find

Tòv su diavovía (Endidola conj. Musgr. in Not.]
Ὑπνώδεα τ' ευνᾶς ἐγείρετε.

Ne

Ne ex somno excitetis. Musgrave. The passage, however, seems defective. Might it not stand:

Ἐπιδέμνιον ὡς πέσοιμ ̓ ἐς ξυνάν.

931-936. Mr. Wakefield proposes some alterations in Mr. Porson's punctuation of this passage, which are for the most part derived from Musgrave. It is not observable that these lines, which are sufficiently clear in the new edition, acquire by these changes any additional perspicuity. In 934. Mr.W. reads EKINHEE for ix vncev, which destroys the metre.

970. αλλα τις χρεία σ' ἐμοῦ;

Mr. W. proposes rather an aukward emendation:

but the passages demand illustration, and not correction. Mr. Porson has performed this duty with his usual ability in the comments on his second Tragedy; where he states that he reserved this passage of the Hecuba, till he wrote his remarks on the Orestes, V. 659. We shall transcribe the whole note, and recommend it to the careful perusal of our readers; as a specimen of that neatness of style, united with acuteness and learned research, which is so eminently displayed in the observations of this Editor.

ORESTES. 659. τί χρὴ φίλων.

• Sic diserte citat Thomas Magister in. v. xpn, addens for di Toure KOINTIMATEDO". Ego vero huc primo transferam, que annos abhinc plus minus quindecim in Anglica Brunckiani Aristophanis censura scripsi (H. Maty's Review, July 1783, p. 66.) "Accurate plerumque Aristophanes sententiarum suarum partes alteram alteri respondere facit, ut Αν. 1419. ὁδι πάρεστιν. ἀλλ' ὅτου χρὴ, δεν λέγειν. Πτερῶν πτερών δεῖ. In priore versu legi debere örau da, xen, clarum est non solum ex apodosi, sed ex eo, quod apud Atticos poëtas genitivum nunquam regit. Unicum, quod obduci posse credo, exemplum, exstat Euripid. Orest. 667. [ed. Musgrav. sc.] sed et illud in rider in mutandum auctoritate Plutarchi Op. Mor. p. 68. E. Aristotelis Ethic. IX. 9." Et quod Aristophanem attinet, anno 1794 codicis Ravennatis collationem edidit Invernizius, quæ istam emendationem confirmavit, Ipse tandem der Diλwv inveni in MS. quem voco L. Is est Codex Ayscough. 4952 in Museo Britannico, tres primas continens fabulas, recentissimus quidem, sed ex alio non malo descriptus; scriba literas et syllabas festinando sape transilit; aliquando etiam exemplaris sui literarum ductus parum intellexisse videtur. Restat ut formulam hanc et similes paucis illustremus. Homerus, nisi me fallit Seberi index, semel tantum verbo & T usus est, et tum infinitivo præponit Il. I. 337. Stobaus quidem XCVIII. p. 409. citat ex II. . 463. To yaz dù dei Ornτar Éveka wrodeμíčen pro δὴ σοί γε, βροτῶν ἕνεκα, πτολεμίζε. Cum et Plutarchus Consol, p. 104. F. πτολεμίζειν habeat, si leges, εἰ δεν σοί γε, βροτῶν ἔνεκα, πτολεμίζει, constructionem quandam extundere poteris, sed sensus non bene procedet, Cum infinitivo xen sæpissime construit, cum accusativo persona el rei geni

είνα

tivo Il. H. 109. Od. A. 124. T.14. 2.463. 4. 110. X. 377. Pari modo substantivum xp cum accusativo et genitivo II. I. 75. 603. K. 43. Λ. 605. Οd. Δ. 634. In Il. Φ. 322. οὐδέ τι μεν χρεὼ Εσται τυμβοχοής, alii legunt TouBoyong, elisa diphthongo. Hanc formam semel ausus est imitari Euripides Hec. 970. ἀλλὰ τις χρεία σ ̓ ἐμοῦ; de qua ibi tacui, ut hoc loco eam memorarem. Scholiastes apte satis advocat II. K. 43. XPE βουλῆς ἐμὲ καὶ σέ, paullo forsan aptius advocaturus 1. 605. τί δε σε χρεω sp; Communes Graci dixere, di on Teide; primus, ut equidem arbitror, novavit Æschylus Prom. 86. αὐτὸν γάρ σε δεῖν Προμηθέως. Eum secuti sunt, Euripides Hec. 1015. Phæniss. 484. Hippol. 23. locisque ibi a Valckenario indicatis, Ion. 1037. Herc. F. 1173. Auctor Rhesi 840. Comicus ignotus apud Herodianum Piersoni p. 450. gumwelas os deï. Non sine specie hanc formulam reddi voluit Marklandus Iph. A. 1137 sed certissime restituit Musgravius Hel. 1444. pro Tns Túxus MEAEI pórov. Ceterum bene comparavit Brunckius Herc. F. 1341. ì döv τιμῶσιν, οὐδὲν δεῖ φίλων Αλις γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὠφελῶν, ὅταν θέλη,

1038. ἡ γὰρ καθείλες Θρήκα, καὶ κρατεῖς ξένε;

δεί

Mr. Wakefield, after some vehement remarks, proposes: RADEIRES TEXVα, xai xρaters Earou-and adds: Sentisne Hecubam de duobus facinoribus loqui; et chorum, verba cadentia tollentem, de duobus similiter interrogare?

To the justness of this alteration we cannot subscribe. There are two circumstances, indeed, mentioned by Hecuba,-the blindness of Polymestor, and the murder of his children. The Chorus also speaks of two: Illum cepisti Thracem, et superior facta es hospite, Domina;-and then, avoiding the mention of death: "Patrasti qualia dicis ?" alluding to Hecuba's words: πᾶιδας οὓς ἔκλειν ̓ ἐγώ. The Chorus could not properly ask, η καθε λES TEKNA, Cepistine LIBEROS, immediately after the Queen had said FILIOS-quos interfeci ego; though she might readily inquire whether Hecuba had really accomplished what she had stated? The reply is, that the Chorus will see Polymestor advancing blind; and will see the bodies of the two children, whom she had killed. The word as cannot in any way be properly applied to the πᾶιδες.

10481050. Π, Εω; πᾶ σω; πᾶ κέλσω; Τεράποδος βα σιν θηρὸς ἀρεστέρου Τιθέμενος ἐπὶ χειρα, καὶ ἴχνος.

R. P. 1050. Kal' xvos interpretatur glossa, quós TW "XVEL. Sed legendum videtur, nai naï "xvos, ut "xvos simpliciter pra pede capiatur. Bacch. 1122.--Catull. Nupt. Pel. et Thet. Candida permulcens liquidis VESTIGIA lymphis.

G. W. in the first place, says: Mihi videtur-Ver. 1050 xoxλngos et sanissimus, ad glossæ datæ mentem: Incedens ope manús, quasi pes foret -but, in the second, he informs us that nec tamen F. Jacobs malé intellexit:' who states that in this passage, "Non agitur de vestigiis Polymestoris, sed Trojanarum, quas insequebatur." Animadv. in Euripid. p. 8.—and thirdly, if Mr.

Porson's